Will Obama go thermonuclear on the SCOTUS today?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Tomcat

    Formerly Known As HITWTOM
    May 7, 2012
    5,568
    St.Mary's County

    Alea Jacta Est

    Extinguished member
    MDS Supporter
    The fact that we are even discussing and considering this as any form of possibility is appalling...but nevertheless understandable.

    This administration has no scruples. They've proven that over and over again. So too, their party.

    Once again, we are confined to the sidelines while we wait and hope for the right thing to play out.

    Damn sad state of affairs...in so many ways.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Likely not, for a couple reasons. First of all, it violates Supreme Court precedent in Noel Canning v. NLRB. It was unanimous that Obama could not do this. The controlling opinion, authored by liberal justice Breyer, precludes this move.

    Second, if he does, the Senate can end it's session immediately and therefore end Garland's term in days**.

    Third, and most important, it would create a vacancy on the D.C. circuit Trump would get to fill. It would be futile, and hand Trump another important vacancy.

    See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.28ef8ed00daf


    In some respects I actually hope Obama tries it. He would be resoundingly rejected, Garland would not serve more than a few days, and Trump gets a D.C. circuit vacancy out of it.

    ** Also another reason Obama won't do it is that technically, Trump could use the same tactic to appoint his own nominee without hearings. The Senate can end it's session, ending Garland's term, whenever it wants. Trump could then make a recess appointment of whomever he wants, circumventing the Democrats.

    Just like Reid ending the Senate filibuster for court vacancies and cabinet appointments, Dems should be careful what they wish for.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    That's better motivation than the whiff of an AMCap.

    Here to hoping....

    The fact that none of us can, with confidence and assurance, say this would NEVER happen in our country is what's broken. We lack trust and confidence in our "leaders" to know and do the right thing.

    Couple weeks and the next batter steps up to the plate. I'm ready for some real baseball.


    Don't be surprised if the anti-Trump protests on inauguration day get equal if not more, longer-lasting, and more positive media coverage than the inauguration. They will try to portray the inaugural as a memorial service.
     

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,555
    Just a fyi, if you haven't read Robert's Rules of Order, you should. Ignore TV hype. The only hope they have is the recess appointment. It's only a few minutes. Then the new session of Congress kicks in. It would be hard to even do the recess appointment.
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    Just a fyi, if you haven't read Robert's Rules of Order, you should. Ignore TV hype. The only hope they have is the recess appointment. It's only a few minutes. Then the new session of Congress kicks in. It would be hard to even do the recess appointment.

    Unfortunately, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is too often the governing document, even when Republicans are in the majority. Because being liked is more important than being responsible and being right.
     

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,555
    Unfortunately, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is too often the governing document, even when Republicans are in the majority. Because being liked is more important than being responsible and being right.

    The point being, if it requires 60% of members votes, it still requires 60 votes, even if there are currently only 36 members sitting at that time. It's not a sliding scale based on members present. There are cases where that may occur, but not in this instance. 60 is the threshold they must meet to appoint him to the supreme Court permanently.
     

    aray

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 6, 2010
    5,294
    MD -> KY
    The problem with the objections is that the Dems have already thought through all of this and have ready answers.

    In the worst case scenario it is NOT a recess appointment. They have a normal Senate confirmation and he is a full Member for life. As for the D.C. vacancy Obama could nominate a replacement and the Senate confirm that position as well, again for life and by the same process.
     

    aray

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 6, 2010
    5,294
    MD -> KY
    The point being, if it requires 60% of members votes, it still requires 60 votes, even if there are currently only 36 members sitting at that time. It's not a sliding scale based on members present. There are cases where that may occur, but not in this instance. 60 is the threshold they must meet to appoint him to the supreme Court permanently.

    Pretty sure these are Senate rules, not law or the Constitution. Reid already changed the rules when it came to lower Federal nominations. They can do the same today for the SCOTUS if they want to do so badly enough.
     

    Seagrave1963

    Still learnin'
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 6, 2011
    10,003
    Eastern Shore
    Likely not, for a couple reasons. First of all, it violates Supreme Court precedent in Noel Canning v. NLRB. It was unanimous that Obama could not do this. The controlling opinion, authored by liberal justice Breyer, precludes this move.

    Second, if he does, the Senate can end it's session immediately and therefore end Garland's term in days**.

    Third, and most important, it would create a vacancy on the D.C. circuit Trump would get to fill. It would be futile, and hand Trump another important vacancy.

    See here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-to-the-supreme-court/?utm_term=.28ef8ed00daf


    In some respects I actually hope Obama tries it. He would be resoundingly rejected, Garland would not serve more than a few days, and Trump gets a D.C. circuit vacancy out of it.

    ** Also another reason Obama won't do it is that technically, Trump could use the same tactic to appoint his own nominee without hearings. The Senate can end it's session, ending Garland's term, whenever it wants. Trump could then make a recess appointment of whomever he wants, circumventing the Democrats.

    Just like Reid ending the Senate filibuster for court vacancies and cabinet appointments, Dems should be careful what they wish for.

    That single short-sighted, self-righteous maneuver will probably come back on them 10 fold over the next 4-8 years.
     

    Matlack

    Scribe
    Dec 15, 2008
    8,555
    Pretty sure these are Senate rules, not law or the Constitution. Reid already changed the rules when it came to lower Federal nominations. They can do the same today for the SCOTUS if they want to do so badly enough.

    Back to votes. It requires 51 votes to change senate rules. Also this would allow Trump to put in whoever he wants elsewhere. They won't do that. They also know there are likely more SCOTUS appointments coming and don't want him having free will with them either. And then Republicans could say f it we are changing rules even more so we can do whatever we want. It would be an incredibly dumb move on their part.
     

    DraKhen99

    Professional Heckler
    Sep 30, 2013
    2,320
    :tinfoil:

    What if O decides to fill *other* appointments, and this is a MSM smokescreen to keep us all busy looking the other way?

    -John
     

    Jim12

    Let Freedom Ring
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2013
    33,876
    Pretty sure these are Senate rules, not law or the Constitution. Reid already changed the rules when it came to lower Federal nominations. They can do the same today for the SCOTUS if they want to do so badly enough.

    Rules are only for Republicans. Haven't Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton (both), Wasserman-Schultz, Brazile, and their media champions already proven this, over and over, with the Republicans' acquiescence?

    Lucy and Charlie Brown, kicking the football.
     

    TheBert

    The Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2013
    7,687
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    The point being, if it requires 60% of members votes, it still requires 60 votes, even if there are currently only 36 members sitting at that time. It's not a sliding scale based on members present. There are cases where that may occur, but not in this instance. 60 is the threshold they must meet to appoint him to the supreme Court permanently.

    I think you will find that it is 60% of the members present. One of the reasons that Representatives and Senators cannot be arrested while in transit to Congress to vote. Just imagine the minority party having the majority party's Senators arrested on their way to Washington DC.

    Also, how did the Senate conduct any business during the Civil War? There were only 66 Senators in 1861. A percentage stands the test of time and expansion.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,931
    Messages
    7,259,491
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom